Talk:2022/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Marsha Hunt (Result: exclusion)

is Marsha Hunt notable enough for inclusion, just asking. 4me689 (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Exclude her. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to a lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, exclude 4me689 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Turns out that multiple people in this discussion were in reality just a single person.

Yes, she is extremely notable. Blacklisted by Hollywood due to allegations of treason and she lived to the exceptionally long age of 104. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.226 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Her notability is almost all domestic. We don't include people based on the lengths of their lives or careers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 1. the charge was domestic 2. age doesn't really do anything here at least in Hunt's case. I agree that she's domestic and she will not be included here, period. 4me689 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Completely incorrect. She represents a movement and her blacklisting makes her an extremely notable activist who received perhaps the harshest treatment of any activist during the 20th century. A domestic movement, which is why she's isn't eligible for inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Hollywood is pretty international and LGBT rights in the 1940s certainly are a notable topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.226 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC) ”Hollywood is pretty international” maybe a case could be made for that today (though I still firmly disagree), but certainly not in the 1940s, when Hunt was most notable. This is a very clear-cut case and Hunt belongs in 2022 deaths in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Thousands of actors have been in Hollywood films. Her support of same-sex marriage, which didn't result in anything. was domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC) I also removed her image from the 1917 article so should she be excluded from the 1917 article itself too? Kyu (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC) those articles aren't cleaned up, but sure. 4me689 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Anyone who's not notable enough to be in the Deaths section isn't notable enough to be in the Births section, and vice versa. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC) There are plenty of hollywood actors in here and an even larger number of foreign domestics. I get a feeling that you don't want to be accused of being America centric. Ingrid997 (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Those Hollywood actors - such as Sidney Poitier & William Hurt - have significant international notability; Hunt doesn't. Which of the people currently in the Deaths section of this article are domestic? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Are Lata Mangeshkar and Jean-Louis Trintignant not considered domestic? Ingrid997 (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC) They're international because they each won significant awards in multiple countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Jean-Jacques Sempé, Yi-Fu Tuan and Claes Oldenburg are not more notable than one of the main activists of the 20th century. Ingrid997 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Unlike Hunt, they all have international notability. Even if Hunt were one of the most important activists, the large majority of her activism was domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC) So are the people I mentioned, and the American media is more global than the Chinese or the French media. Ingrid997 (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Hunt doesn't have significant international notability. All the other seven people named in this section do. International achievements are far more important to WP than media coverage is. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Yi-Fu Tan is not notable at all and Lata Mangeshkar was only notable in India. News coverage of her death is a result of the power of Indian media, similar to that of American and British media. Ingrid997 (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC) They each have awards in multiple countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Not Yi Fu Tan. A BBC obituary survey shows no one knows him. Marsha Hunt was a Raspberry Award in London 1951. Ingrid997 (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC) the raspberry awards are domestic not to mention there are for bad movies, also the BBC obituary is also domestic. she does not have good enough international awards to be included. 4me689 (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC) You can't compare Yi Fu Tan and Marsha Hunt. They are two people in two completely different fields. One is acting, and the other geography. If we go by coverage alone; then almost everyone outside of the Arts, would be excluded with the exception of heads of states. That's stupid and folly. We can compare Hunt however to OTHER actors/actresses and we can see that Hunt is not notable compared to people like Sidney Poitier, William Hurt, these figures won multiple awards in other countries. 65.78.186.95 (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Won a raspberry award* sorry for the typo Ingrid997 (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC) You cannot possibly think the BBC is domestic. I think winning any raspberry award is a notable and international achievement since all English language films compete including bollywood ones. I think the fact that Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld — the masterminds behind the 21st century's 2 biggest wars until the Russian invasion of Ikraine — are not pictured in the 2021 article denotes a fear of Wikipedia of being accused of being America centric. Ingrid997 (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld however; were not Head of State figures so regardless if they were American or not; by that measure alone; they would not be included. 65.78.186.95 (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Excuse me; they would not have their photos included. 65.78.186.95 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC) True, few politicians who haven't been heads of state/gov are included on main year articles, and it's highly unlikely we'd give any of them pictures. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Marsha Hunt was ranked 51st in Time Magazines Best 100 Actors of the 20th century. Ingrid997 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Doesn't mean anything. She has no significant awards. No Oscars. No Cannes. No BAFTA. No Emmys. Nothing. 65.78.186.95 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Neither did Gideon Osborne but he was in the 2015 picture. She did get nominated. She was more than an actress; a renowned activist in the LBGTQ+ community and met with Edward Heath and Clement Atlee due to her activism! I think she met MLK though I am probably wrong. Ingrid997 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC) List not picture. So sorry for the mistake!!! Ingrid997 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Gideon Osborne is a redirect to British former politician George Osborne, who is alive. Do you mean someone else? She was a notable activist in the US only. Meeting people is irrelevant unless something important happens as a result. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Her meetings show how admired her activism was at the time. You can see her participate in pride marches and she has become a symbol of pride. Additionally she was awarded an honorary title her philanthropy a few years ago if my memory is correct. A list by a feminist website ranks her as the third most important activist of the last 100 years (from 2018, I think?). Ingrid997 (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Being admired doesn't grant inclusion on main year articles, nor does marching, philanthrophy or honorary titles. Activism rarely does, unless it leads to major changes. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC) So why are other activists included in previous articles? Ingrid997 (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Which activists, other than those who are more notable for other things, are on main year articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Thích Nhất Hạnh and Pilar Bardem (Bardem appears in the 2021 article) come to mind. Ingrid997 (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC) She should certainly be removed & he probably should. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC) So why haven't they whereas Marsha Hunt has? She's very notable, I would say. Ingrid997 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Marsha Hunt was primarily a actress. And as a Actress, she has no international awards. No Oscar. No Grammy. No Bafta. No Cannes. Sidney Poitier was also a activist in addition to his acting career; but we include him; primarily because of his oscar and bafta wins since he was primarily a actor. Bardem should not have been included at all. Nhan I don't know. 65.78.186.95 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Marsha Hunt is a notable actress and as far as being blacklisted goes. I suppose she should stay, and perhaps have a photo too. Redcoat1945 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC) That's the thing. She was an actress but also an activist. Also she has been nominated to several high-profile awards and lists. If we include Bardem and the Thích Nhất Hạnh, we are required to include Marsha Hunt. At this point, if Henry Kissinger dies, would he get a picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.226 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Insufficiently notable people are frequently added to main year articles; we need more editors to remove them. Their presence is no reason to add more. Hunt's notability as an actress & activist are both domestic. It depends who dies during the same month as Henry Kissinger. He likely will due to being the most notable person to die that month. Or he could die the same month as Jimmy Carter, Pelé & Gene Hackman - who'd be given photos instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Marsha hunt is as notable as Gilbert Gottfried & Jack Layton. Both Gottfried & layton are not notable and should be excluded. Speaking of Layton, when I removed him from the 2011 article because of two previous consensus to exclude, a user named @Golden Matrix:, open a Jack Layton discussion on my talk page, on why I shouldn't had remove him and making excuses. I wonder what golden Matrix thoughts on Gilbert Gottfried and Marsha hunt are, and also @Ingrid997: and @Redcoat1945: what is your opinion on Jack Layton and Gilbert Gottfried, I'm just curious. 4me689 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Well, I never heard of Gilbert Godfrey, whereas Layton was a deeply popular albeit extremely domestic figure. He did achieve the NDP's best election result ever I believe but I don't think the general public outside of Canada has a clue who he is. Anyway, Marsha Hunt I would argue should also be included in part due to her longevity. An 80-year-long career is certainly notable and I'm sure it's up there among the ~10 longest acting careers in history. She is essentially a slightly less notable Olivia De Havilland, who is perhaps among the most notable actresses of all time and yet was also domestic. For your information I'm British and I know who Marsha Hunt is, so she is hardly that domestic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.226 (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Olivia De Havilland however won an Oscar among other major international awards. 130.86.97.41 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Which is why I said a slightly less notable Olivia De Havilland. Hunt has always been prejudices for standing up to Mccarthyism and I suspect Wikipedia is guilty of this too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.226 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Marsha Hunt however has not won ANY international award. No Oscar. Cannes. Emmy. If Hunt won a Academy Award; I would include her. 130.86.97.41 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Hunt is nowhere near as notable as Olivia de Havilland. If you're British, how do you know much about Jack Layton? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC) So why not? There are no arguments to be made against her. She is notable, record-breaking, popular and successful. Redcoat1945 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC) We've said why she shouldn't be included. She won no important awards & has little international notability. Popularity, media coverage, domestic notability, length of career, number of fans etc. don't grant places on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC) 1. She has won a plethora of awards 2. Popularity and longevity do grant slots in articles as can be seen from the 1997 page. 3. If media coverage doesn't help her cause why are there even lists? Aren't celebrities only celebrities due to media attention? What would any of these insufferablt rich Hollywood actors be without the media? Redcoat1945 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Thousands of entertainers have won awards. None of hers are anywhere near important enough to grant places on main year articles. Who or what are you referring to on 1997? Media coverage doesn't prove or measure notability; it indicates popularity & publicity. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Marsha Hunt is generally recognised as one of the main actresses of the Golden Age of Hollywood, a list including politicians, multiple Oscar winners, literal princesses and, I hate this term, "sex symbols". Marsha Hunt's activism was crucial in the Supreme Court ruling Loving v. Virginia that legalised interracial marriage & Obergeffell v. Hodges that legalised same sex marriage. Hunt is perhaps among the most notable actresses in history and her longevity is also record breaking. Also, I'm referring to Jeanne Calment in the 1997 article, who was rightfully included in the deaths section (born 1875). Redcoat1945 (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC) All those things you mention about Hunt are domestic. I guess Jeanne Calment is included because her lifespan is the longest verified in the history of the world.Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC) @Jim Michael 2 Why do you think that someone outside Canada wouldn't know who Jack Layton was? He was one of the most powerful politicians in Canada; he was a major decision maker in Canada, the news of such would reach other countries. Golden Matrix (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC) The vast majority of people outside Canada haven't heard of Layton, or of any Canadian politicians that haven't been Prime Minister. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @Jim Michael 2 Why do you think that? For example, Hong Kong knows Jack Layton well enough. Golden Matrix (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Why would that be the case & where is the evidence of it? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @Jim Michael 2 Mainly because of family ties, his second wife is from Hong Kong. Google Trends shows Jack Layton has name recognition in multiple countries outside Canada. In order of notability: Hong Kong, Ireland, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, even India. Seriously, I don't know why you think a powerful Canadian politician won't be well known globally. Golden Matrix (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @4me689 I'd say Exclude Gilbert Gottfried for the time being. That being said saying he's "as notable" as Marsha Hunt is lunacy. Gottfried is WAY more notable compared to Hunt, especially in the East (examples. China, India), just do a Google Trends comparison, many countries light up for Gottfried NONE for Hunt. That being said I'd say don't include Gottfried. Golden Matrix (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC) If you're saying that Gottfried shouldn't be included, and that he's more notable than Hunt, you're saying that she should also be excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @Jim Michael 2 Yes, that would be correct exclude Hunt. Golden Matrix (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC) As far as im concerned Wikipedia is banned in China, so they're of no interest to this list. Gotttfried, whoever he is, is probably related to you because it is hardly likely that someone would defend such ludicrously irrelevant man. Marsha Hunt is generally considered one of the greatest actresses of all time. Redcoat1945 (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Who says that Hunt is one of the greatest actresses of all time? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Telegraph, Time, essentially every newspaper out there. She's terrific. There are some other notable actresses that never won an Oscar. "Other top actresses without Oscars include Michelle Pfeiffer, Annette Bening, Sigourney Weaver, Helena Bonham Carter, and Christina Ricci. This list of female Hollywood celebrities who have no Academy Awards also includes black Actresses, like Angela Bassett, and famous classic stars, like Greta Garbo and Judy Garland." (from an article in Google). Redcoat1945 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Have any of those ranked her in the world's top twenty actresses of all time? The others you mention have major awards; In Michelle Pfeiffer's case, from four countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Michelle Pfeiffer, Annette Benning, Signourey Weaver each won a BAFTA. Bonham Carter won Emmys and Screen Actor Guild Awards. 65.78.186.95 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC) That doesn't determine who goes on the list though. Under your logic when Xi Jingping dies he shouldn't be added because "Wikipedia is banned in China". Golden Matrix (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC) On February 8, 1960, Hunt received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 6658 Hollywood Boulevard. In 1999, she was one of the 250 actresses nominated for the American Film Institute's selection of the 25 greatest female screen legends who debuted before 1950. In 2002, she received a Golden Boot Award for her contributions to Western television shows and films. Three of the films in which Hunt has appeared have won the Academy Award. Both Pride and Prejudice and Blossoms in the Dust received an Oscar in the category Academy Award for Best Production Design in 1941 and 1942 respectively. The Human Comedy received an Oscar in the now-defunct category Academy Award for Best Story in 1944. Include Marsha Hunt. Definitive answer from me. Redcoat1945 (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC) None of that is important enough to grant places on main year articles. Awards that films gained don't grant international notability to their casts. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Hunt never won an Oscar for herself. 65.78.186.95 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC) I'm not saying no Chinese should be added, I'm merely stating that Chinese interests are less of a priority since the Chinese can't even see it. Of course, there is global interest in Xi Jinping. Redcoat1945 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @Redcoat1945 I said he was known in China, not that he was known exclusively in China. I also said India (predominately the state of Karnataka). Significant numbers also in Russia, Australia, Canada. Golden Matrix (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC) @Redcoat1945 Have you heard of the animated movie Disney's Aladdin? Golden Matrix (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Vote You know what lets do a !vote section, this dispute needs to stop now. Should marsha hunt be included??? 4me689 (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Yes She is by far one of the most notable actresses of her generation — widely considered the greatest generation of cinema, worldwide — and broke records with her longevity as well as becoming a significant figure in worldwide acceptance of rainbow rights and black people. She is also exceptionally renowned for her kindness on set. Yes because, if her activism is domestic, what about Martin Luther King Jr., why does he get a picture in the 1963 article? Isn't he the definition of domestic activism? Once again another example of Mccarthyism. Both comments posted by now-blocked sock puppets. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC) No she does not have international notability, her activism is domestic, and she never won any International awards. 4me689 (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC) No, due to the aforementioned lack of international notability. This vote is unnecessary & a few of the new accounts in the Hunt discussion appear to be socks of the Gilbert Gottfried fan CountingStars500, who wasted a huge amount of our time here earlier this year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC) No; Jim Michael has proved to me that she's a domestic figure, not international. She may have done some work internationally, but her impact seems primarily constrained to one country. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Absolutely not - and I should remind the two users who have said yes as of now to sign their comments. TheScrubby (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC) What happens if the vote ends in a draw? Redcoat1945 (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC) And when does the voting end? Redcoat1945 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"LEAD", and "LED" (Result: fixed to "led")

In the summarization paragraphs at the top of this page, the text of the fourth paragraph reads:

"...has caused the displacement of 16.8 million Ukrainians (8 million internally displaced persons and 8.8 million refugees) and LEAD to international condemnations..."

The text that I've italicized should say, "and LED to", as the correct past tense of the English verb "to lead" is "LED". But, as the article is semi-protected, there is no way for me to correct it. Can someone with access please fix the spelling error? I've emailed Wikipedia itself, but nobody's fixed it. 2600:6C52:6E00:854:8DC:4F10:EA72:35E4 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Cross-listing certain domestic events in main year articles

I think that we might need to adjust some of the standards here for event inclusion. There are certain events that as of the writing of this article, are very significant in world history, especially in reaction, though only limited to one country primarily in what actually happened. These should be limited in inclusion to only include the defining events for each country, but included nonetheless as these events may not only stoke international reactions but also define countries for years to come. There are a few of these events that come to mind for me:

• Mahsa Amini protests (assuming they either cause a full revolution or become martyred like the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests)
• Dobbs v. Jackson
• The one or two biggest Atlantic hurricanes of the year (once hurricane season is over, judging only by what we've run into so far though it looks like it's gonna be either Fiona or Ian)
• Iraqi political crisis
• If a North Korean nuclear test occurs, throw it in.

These are just a few ideas, but based on the immense amount of notability that these events (especially Dobbs v. Jackson) has gained outside of the United States (though dwarved by domestic searches on Google Trends as seen here), we can't be comparing everything to apartheid, the invasion of Ukraine, or only the most notable events of the year. I encourage the discussion (or rediscussion) of these events. TLDR: We're being too exclusive and censoring a little bit too much from main year articles; it's about time we do something about it. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Turns out that at one of the participants of this discussion thread was a banned sockpuppet.

Exclude Dobbs v. Jackson protests. They led to nothing, the size of the protests was surprisingly miniscule, the cause was completely domestic and there is nothing realistically that would have happened if the protests had gone on. Congress would have attempted to codify Roe anyway, regardless of the protests. These protests were almost as useless and ineffective as the 2020 stop the steal election protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC) This is false. First of all, consider the mere fact we have an article on 2022 abortion protests. They didn't lead to nothing; they led to action being taken in both directions. West Virginia and Idaho for example have banned abortion in their state, while many cities and activist groups are actively sponsoring interstate abortions. Electoral analysts additionally say that the repeal of Roe v. Wade costed the Republican Party their edge in the upcoming US Midterms. Reactions aren't limited to the US either; Boris and Macron have all spoken against the decision, along with Olaf Scholz, Justin Trudeau, Pedro Sanchez, as well as various world leaders/officials. Boris Johnson put it best perhaps: "This is not our court, it’s another jurisdiction, but clearly it has massive impacts on people’s thinking around the world. It’s a very important decision". InvadingInvader (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC) The only international thing about that is mere criticism by political leaders, who quite often comment on domestic events outside their respective countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Any criticism or reaction is better than no criticism or reaction. Ceteris paribus, with such reactions, world leaders and the populations they represent see this as on the same level of importance as the death of Abe and Gorbachev, and much more important than Turkey and Israel restoring relations or the Whisky War, both of which are on the article as is. I'm not saying they should be removed, but people clearly care more about Dobbs v. Jackson than Canada and Denmark resolving an island dispute. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC) If the reaction is merely (written or spoken) words rather than military action or sanctions, it's not important. It's mere criticism, comment, conversation etc. I've already stated my objections to the Whisky War being included. It was a petty, non-violent dispute over a small, barren, remote, uninhabited island. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The Mahsa Amini protests may become important enough, as they spread to other countries. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is domestic; it's highly unlikely that anyone would want something similar in another other country to be included. Hurricanes (& other disasters) are only included if they severely affect multiple countries &/or there's a major, physical international response (actually doing things on site rather than prayers, condolences, sympathy etc.). The 2021–2022 Iraqi political crisis is domestic; political crises are common and should only be included if they result in changes of national government. Tests by N Korea (or any other country) should only be included if there's a major international response (sanctions, military action etc. rather than mere criticism, conversations etc.) Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The concept in question is not on those events specifically (those are just examples) but rather defining moments for nations as a whole. We're being too exclusive in our entries and filtering out too many events which have a notable impact on regions or the largest nations just because they're too domestic, so I'm proposing that we include some domestic events. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

None of those you mention have major effects on multiple countries. Defining moments for nations belong on year by country articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 "Defining moments for nations belong on year by country articles" That's exactly what I think is not the best philosophy for this all of this article's potential inclusions and that should change when it comes to the inclusion of events here.

Why should an event which defines a country in such a way to cause various protests on both sides of an argument be limited to that country's article, especially if there is any newsworthy international reaction at all? InvadingInvader (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Because they're domestic events. Such things happen frequently. Events that define countries & years should be on the relevant year by country articles. Many domestic events are widely reported internationally. It makes no sense to put them on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Many domestic events are widely reported internationally."; what about only including the most important domestic events? I know that OSE isn't the best argument, but precedent in nearly every one of these year articles has been to include extremely significant domestic events which stoke international reaction, like January 6 in the US, China's Hong Kong National Security Law, the 2020 Belarusian protests, and numerous elections in many democracies. I agree that not every event should be included, but we already do this in essence. As evidenced from prior year articles, Wikipedia consensus for the most part EXCEPT for this article under the exclusionist philosophy which is loudly pushed is that events which are widely covered internationally, no matter if domestic or international, is included. I'm interpreting from what you're saying, including Dobbs would relatively be as bad as summoning Godzilla and having him destroy San Francisco. What possible harm can be done from events as domestically significant as the overturning of Roe v. Wade which stoke ANY international reaction at all?

It makes no sense to put them on main year articles...it does make sense. These events change countries vastly; states in the US are already rushing to pass laws banning or protecting abortion. I'm primarily using Dobbs v. Jackson and abortion in my arguments, but there are many other domestic events which have occurred and likely will occur. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Main year articles aren't meant to be inclusionist; they're meant to be selective. They're for important international events, births & deaths only. There are a huge number of year by country articles for domestic events. Like I said, if the international reaction is in the form of military action or sanctions, it becomes significantly international & is included. In the far larger number of cases in which the international reaction is in words only, it isn't significantly international & we don't include them. You again bring up abortion in the US. Yes, it's important - in the US. Which is why it's in the lead & body of 2022 in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You bring up exactly what should be changed, even if marginally to include domestic events which impact the world. I also think that you are severely underestimating the impact of words. It's a balancing act with this article, but ultimately, in general, Wikipedia should be the people's encyclopedia which reflects what the people think is important, especially with regard to the press and world events. Of course we have people like us here to guide, but it has been proven to me that the world sees Dobbs as a major inflection point, even if it's primarily US centered. I would agree with you on excluding the Whisky island; it's not something people care about. But it's more important to create an encyclopedia which is useful to the people rather than one more useful to only society's most intellectual.

Like it or not, we are a popular and widely-used site, and we have other encyclopedias which are more tuned to the experts, nerds, or more academically or foreign-policy minded. The article would be better if we covered events that are notable using both in action and in press coverage, judging on a combination of coverage and effect. Dobbs can be a good benchmark and form the "Dobbs test": if a domestic event is on a similar impact within a country as Dobbs and gains international knowledge on the same scale and reaction as Dobbs, include it on the international events list, as the international population thinks more about it and it has impacted a major country specifically. If not, throw it only in the domestic events list.

This "Dobbs" test would allow for an exclusive collection of events which define nations and gain international recognition to be included while excluding widely-covered events which are not as important or defining. I'm on the same page with you on events like Depp v. Heard; it's just something that gained attention and had minimal impact on its country aside from giving the American populace to meme and talk about. This test would also ensure that less-notable events which you oppose inclusion of, like the Whisky War between Canada and Denmark, are topics that would be excluded, as only those who religiously follow geography would care about it.

Jim, I agree that we have to maintain some amount of selectiveness or exclusivity for lists. But what people care about is more important than a few editors. World leaders are a Wikipedia is for the people, by the people, so the best thing for us to do would be to serve the people. We're not Citizendium where everything is more so by experts for a more niche populace. This new standard would improve the article by allowing for events the world cares about to be included while maintaining selectiveness. We're excluding events that matter to quite a lot of the world; Google Trends data for the days leading up to and after Dobbs showed a CLEAR spike in worldwide interest for the subject. I hope we can work together and agree on a middle ground instead of each retreating to "my way or the highway positions"; this can be a middle ground where we take into account your stance on maintaining exclusivity in this article while addressing important domestic events which are viewed with albeit lesser international importance but extremely significant domestic importance and reasonable international importance nonetheless. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There won't ever be a 'Dobbs test'. The large majority of people outsode the US haven't even heard of Dobbs. We don't measure notability by Google trends. If we did, we'd have to include Depp v Heard, and in 2021 the murder of Sarah Everard & the killing of Gabby Petito. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 (I'll respond both to your comment under Tests/attempts and here under this reply). You're comparing apples to oranges, Jim. The murders/killings of Gabby Petito and Sarah Everard, as sad as they turned out, are trends, just like Depp v. Heard or any other celebrity drama, or a minor mass shooting, again as sad as they are.

"We don't measure notability by Google trends" This is completely false. WP:GNUM verbatim suggests that Google Trends can help to establish notability. Please refrain from confusing your own philosophy and ideals with Wikipedia precent, guidelines, and policy.

"The large majority of people outside the US haven't even heard of Dobbs"...This claim is factually inaccurate. Numerous sources from outside the US have ascertained the existence and role that Dobbs has played (see South China Morning Post, Taiwan News, the Hindustan Times, Arab News, and France24. Based on the above sources, it is impossible to reliably argue that most of the connected world has not heard of Dobbs v. Jackson in some capacity.

From what I am seeing, I'm getting the impression that you are looking at only one aspect of my argument and ignoring everything else. I proposed a solution that took into account both my ideals and your ideals, yet you rejected it. Please try to reach middle ground more often rather than just rejecting everything you don't agree with in a "my way or the highway" approach; such mentality, comparable to behaving as if you and maybe a few of your closest friends own an article, only leads to more conflict and less stuff getting done.

As an additional friendly reminder, please make sure to fact-check your arguments. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That link about Google & notability refers to helping determine if something is notable enough for a WP article. Being included on main year articles has a far higher bar.

I'm talking about ordinary people, not journalists who report international news. Ask people who aren't American & don't live in the US what they think of Dobbs, and the vast majority won't have a clue who/what you're talking about.

You're trying to change the way things have been done on main year articles for years. The point of them is to document the international world. Year by country articles cover domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Being included on main year articles has a far higher bar." how come we have had notable American events included in

"Ask people who aren't American & don't live in the US what they think of Dobbs, and the vast majority won't have a clue who/what you're talking about." I have family and friends abroad. Dobbs was the gavel heard around the world. Everybody who is literate and is connected to the world has heard of Dobbs, either by name or knowing that abortion is no longer constitutionally protected in the US by some form.

We have covered significant domestic events in the past, and if anything, I'm returning us to a more informed precedent which you have tried to remove. You're making stuff much more exclusive than in past years.

I suggested the Dobbs Test as a middle ground which suits both of our opinions, and we do agree on quite a bit actually with regard to excluding trending domestic events. Yet when it comes simply to including a SMALL amount of domestic events which trigger an international reaction, you reject every proposal I make. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean ask people outside the US what they think of the US abortion laws & protests. I mean if you ask them what they think of Dobbs, without telling them who or what Dobbs is. Say - without introduction or context - to ordinary non-Americans (not journalists, academics etc.): "What do you think of Dobbs?" The vast majority won't have a clue who or what you're talking about. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

here are my opinions

Mahsa Amini protests - Include, it will probably lead to political changes in iran

Dobbs v. Jackson - in hindsight I do kind of agree with jim michael

hurricanes - unless it's hurricane Katrina, exclude cuz hurricanes are normally domestic.

Iraqi political crisis - same as jim michael

a North Korean nuclear test - also same as jim michael. 4me689 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Exclude all except maybe the Mahsa Amini protests, which I'm neutral on for the time being but overall think we should wait and see the end result before making a final judgement on inclusion. Including Dobbs v. Jackson would be pure, blatant Americentrism. Hurricanes I would have to agree with Jim Michael's point that they should only be included if they severely impact multiple countries, and/or if there's a major, physical international response rather than mere "thoughts and prayers". TheScrubby (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with one or two domestic events per country, especially if it defined the country for the year? InvadingInvader (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is in reference to Dobbs, I’ll just say that there was already a firm discussion about it (that you can read under “Roe V Wade Overturning” in Archive 5) which resulted in exclusion; I gave my two cents there and my views on the matter remain the same. TheScrubby (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It's more so in for including one or two extremely important domestic events which have received an international reaction in this article. Dobbs was my suggestion for loosening standards since it was probably the most major domestic event in the US that gained international attention, but it's more about including some defining domestic events. If maybe North Korea had a Tiananmen Square like incident which became martyred and had world leaders reacting, sure. I used Dobbs as my primary suggestion since it gained attention outside of the US and reactions from world leaders. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You're the only person who's pushing for Dobbs. It's the thing you mention the most often on here, despite you having no support for it. The reactions were words only, which doesn't create international notability. World leaders often mention domestic events in other countries, including laws, crimes, disasters etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

World leaders are treating Dobbs on the same level as Gorbachev's death, which was a no brainer to include. And I'm not pushing for just Dobbs; I'm pushing for a small amount notable domestic events which gain an international reaction to be included. Events like these should all be no-brainers to include. And it doesn't just apply to the US; if India ruled on banning abortion. I suggested a middle ground in the Dobbs test, but you rejected it. I found logical fallacies in your arguments yet you just kept pushing them. Over and over and over again on this issue I suggested that we try to reach a middle ground. You just shrug me off. Start treating me better and my ideas more constructively, please. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Gorbachev's death isn't included in Events. All (former) heads of state/gov qualify for inclusion in Births & Deaths sections of main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Legalisation of same-sex marriage in Cuba (Result: exclusion)

Citation: [1]

I see a couple people tried to add it already and were reverted because it's a "domestic event", but I feel like that could describe a lot of entries on here. I see no reason it should be excluded from this article, there's precedent for the rest of the world caring when another country legalises gay marriage. WPscatter ^t/_c 02:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Exclude this, along with all changes in domestic laws; there are many each year. We don't include domestic events in main year articles. People who are interested will read the relevant year by country articles. Being the first change in particular types of law in a communist/conservative/Slavic/Mediterranean/Muslim/Buddhist country, or in a particular hemisphere or continent does not make these events international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Exclude because I don't think it is notable on the international stage. If the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, or Iran ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, I'd think that would be main year article worthy versus a secular nation in the Americas that already had largely tolerant attitudes toward LGBT+ people. PaulRKil (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, as per PaulRKil and Jim Michael 2. 4me689 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Turns out that GoldCheddar30 was a banned sockpuppet.

Exclude. You can't possibly believe that the passing of a law in Cuba is notable enough for inclusion in main year articles. GoldCheddar30 (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC) Taiwan's passing of same-sex marriage is included in 2019. Based on the consensus here, it should probably be removed there as well. So yes, based on that, I did think it was notable enough. I suggest you have a read of WP:AGF because this comment is needlessly hostile. WPscatter t/c 16:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC) That should be removed immediately. I don't believe my comment was hostile, but if it was then I apologise. GoldCheddar30 (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC) Insufficiently notable events & people are frequently added to main year articles. We need more editors to remove them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC) That's fine, I'm not making a WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST argument. Just stating part of why I thought it would be notable for inclusion. WPscatter t/c 19:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

NASA's DART on collage (Result: inconclusive)

should we add NASA's DART to the collage, it's one of the biggest scientific things of this year, and we don't have a scientific thing on this year's collage, in my opinion is should replace the 2022 Kazakh unrest cuz it's the least notable thing on the collage. I'm just asking what's your opinion guys 4me689 (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm neutral on both tbh. Either one works. Since Kazakhstan didn't end up like Tiananmen Square or a protest that caused changed, I'm full in for replacing it if something is more notable. 03:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC) InvadingInvader (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Turns out that at one of the participants of this discussion thread was a banned sockpuppet.

I'd argue you should include the 2022 World Cup in Qatar in the collage (when the tournament is finished). 146.200.180.251 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Yes, add the World Cup in December. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Yes I agree with @Jim Michael 2:, as for the picture to replace, ideally we want eight pictures on the collage. So what picture should we replace. 4me689 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Exclude DART & the assassination of Shinzo Abe. Reinstate the Kazakh unrest. I've explained why I disagree with DART being in the article at all, so obviously I disagree with it being in the collage. Shinzo Abe ceased to be the Prime Minister of Japan in 2020, so his assassination didn't have much effect on Japan or its gov. The Kazakh unrest killed over 200 people & caused the replacement of its prime minister. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Death section pictures for July (Result: Robert Curl, Shinzo Abe, and José Eduardo dos Santos)

there has just been room that has open up for a second image in July, and here's the contenders for death section pictures in July

• 
  American Nobel chemist, Robert Curl
• 
  2nd President of Angola, José Eduardo dos Santos
• 57th President of Mexico, Luis Echeverría
  57th President of Mexico, Luis Echeverría
• 
  12th Prime Minister and 51st President of Peru, Francisco Morales-Bermúdez

in my opinion the second picture should go to Robert curl, as we already have a world leader picture in the form of Shinzo Abe, the third picture should go to dos Santos cuz of his longevity as the leader of Angola, I wonder what everyone's opinions is. 4me689 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

My money's on Curl too. At the end of the month, I think it would be Curl, Abe, Dos Santos (but please, not the pic you're proposing: I don't think it's appropriate to have the flag of a country that isn't his in the photo behind him) and a fourth one depending on who will die. And if no one more relevant dies, I would support Brook (for his important role in show business) or Echevarría (the Hispanic quota that I think the Year in Topic is missing). I "long" for some important woman to pass away...this Year in Topic is very masculinized. All this if there is room for four images. _-_Alsorian (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It should be Curl & Abe until there's space for a third. Abe is by far the most notable person & Curl by far the most notable non-politician to die this month. The pics should be of people from different fields; it's not justified for both to be of politicians when a highly-notable scientist also died. The other politicians shown here are nowhere near as notable as Abe. Japan is the world's third-largest economy. None of the other politicians are from countries which are developed or among the ten largest economies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I remember Jim Michael saying last year that if more than one highly notable head of government/state died in a single month, it would make sense for there to be an exception to the variety rule and that we should in that case prioritise these figures. In the case of this month, I feel quite strongly that this scenario applies - it goes without saying that Abe should get the first image (mainly due to the circumstances of his death), but the second image should instead go to dos Santos - given that he was head of his country for almost 40 years (and was the second-longest serving President of any African state) and was a highly significant and influential figure in the continent. TheScrubby (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Dos Santos is nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception. Angola is one of the least developed countries, so despite his very long term as leader, he didn't have major international effects. Even if Abe had died naturally, he'd have a photo because he's by far the most notable person to die this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you understate dos Santos's international significance, which global obituaries empasise, particularly with his involvement in the Congo Wars - and Angola is one of the least developed countries in large part due to (arguably) the legacy of dos Santos, as well as the civil war that he presided over until 2001. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say, but I thoroughly disagree with the premise that dos Santos was nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception (I can't quite say the same about the other leaders who passed this month though). TheScrubby (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that dos Santos kept his country poor, but that doesn't increase his notability. The DRC is also a LDC. The First & Second Congo Wars are continued with the Ituri & Kivu conflicts, so I can't see how we can give him high notability based on his input into those. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Fidel Ramos has been added, meaning that all 3 photos for this month are of politicians, which shouldn't be the case. Curl has a Nobel in Chemistry & should be one of the 3. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

in my opinion it should be the same as usual, Abe, curl, and Dos Santos.

Ramos, does not have the same big affect on his country that, abe and Dos Santos had on theirs. 4me689 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

While I have already expressed that this month should be an exception where the images should all go to the (highly notable) leaders who passed, if we were to omit one of the three I’d agree with 4me689 and prioritise dos Santos over Ramos. TheScrubby (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should limit the month to three photos and those being Curl, Abe, and Zawahiri. I think these three have international notoriety that outpaces other people being considered.PaulRKil (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Representing four different fields would be better: Peter Brook, Robert Curl, Shinzo Abe & Ayman al-Zawahiri. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing to describe COVID-19 pandemic (Result: retain)

It is unsure about the situation of the COVID-19 Pandemic which is either ongoing or not around but it is not so much of a big deal now. 86.128.56.73 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

While the impacts have been lessened since 2020 and 2021, it is clearly ongoing. It continues to evolve new variants, continues to affect society and the economy and public health in numerous ways, and billions of people still aren't fully vaccinated – all of which is more than enough to justify inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree per Wjfox2005. The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

David Warner (Result: exclusion)

Just going to start this section for reference on his inclusion. I'm leaning towards include as he's won an Emmy, appeared in multiple renowned films (some international films at that) and (IMO) has just as much reason to be included as James Caan. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If we're including Caan, Liotta & Warner - all of whom have very few awards & aren't considered to have been among the best actors - we're going to include many each year. I think we should exclude all of them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined towards a neutral position, leaning towards opposing - from my point of view Warner's notability wasn't as great as that of either Caan or Liotta, and even those two are borderline inclusions at most. TheScrubby (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Using my usual metric of "proper" obituaries in international heavyweight sources, although many do exist a number of them are AP type copy and pastes. Compared (certainly) to Caan and (to a lesser extent) Liotta, there doesn't seem to be the coverage there. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Tend to include as he was mega-famous in the UK in the 1970s for his Shakespearean work as well as screen roles. However, his profile fell off significantly over the years. As long as we are excluding Liotta, I'll support exclusion. Deb (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bill Russell (Result: exclusion)

Should Bill Russell also be excluded from the 1934 article as well or keep him there? He lacks international nobility but I’m curious. Kyu (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Exclude from both due to insufficient international notability. The inclusion criteria for Births sections are the same as for Deaths sections. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jim Michael, this seems to be a trend when non-notable people die, they get added to the birth sections and they don't get removed cuz older years ain't as cleaned up. 4me689 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ahh I see. I’d figure I ask cause I wasn’t so sure. I also added the importance tag on Pat Carroll because I’m not 100% sure if she should be here because not a lot of people even heard of her, aside from playing as the voice of Ursula in The Little Mermaid. I also don’t think Nichelle Nichols should be here either because she is only known for playing as Lt. Uhura on the original Star Trek series. Kyu (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning on exclude for Russell. Definitely exclude for Carroll, while Nichelle Nichols could possibly be a borderline inclusion due to the prominence and significance of her role in one of the most internationally notable television shows of all time - though I’ll wait and see what others have to say. TheScrubby (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Nichols due to a lack of international notability. Playing a major role in an internationally popular show is true of hundreds of domestic actors & doesn't create international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% include for Bill Russell. An 11-time NBA champion, more championships than any other individual in the history of American team sports. Beyond that he also broke down barriers for African-Americans in professional sports and was an icon of the American Civil Rights movement. I don't see how this could even be a question, frankly, especially when the article includes a "sprint canoeist," a sport no one has ever heard of, with a three-line long article, simply because they won an Olympic gold medal in 1956. As for Nichelle Nichols, I also say include because of the ongoing global cultural relevance of Star Trek, even if not everyone knows her name. Besides that, her deceased Star Trek co-stars were all included in their respective articles: DeForest Kelley in 1999, James Doohan in 2005, Majel Barrett in 2008, and Leonard Nimoy in 2015. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

All you say about Russell is domestic, which supports excluding him from here & that his place is on 2022 deaths in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

To User:TheScrubby So I’ll exclude Carroll but can she stay in the 1927 article or exclude her there too? Kyu (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If one's death is excluded from a year article, it goes without saying that they would also be excluded on the year article for when they were born. So yes. And regarding the Star Trek cast, I have no real issue with the inclusion of Nicholls, though I would argue that Barrett ought to be excluded as she wasn't part of the core cast. TheScrubby (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. If you need any help with anything, just message me on my talk page. Kyu (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect Jim, I don't know who made you the authority on what is "domestic" and what is "international." Please see my response to TheScrubby below for Russell's international notability. Dragonbacon (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

By what standard are we defining "international notability" here? I know this has been debated endlessly before but it really does feel like a fatally flawed system when it would have you exclude Bill Russell and include Yelizaveta Dementyeva. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Final point: if an Olympic gold medal is all it takes to be "internationally notable," then Bill Russell automatically qualifies because he did, in fact, win an Olympic gold medal. In the same year as Dementyeva, even. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been discussed on-and-off over the last year and a half, but there has been a consistent issue when it comes to who should be included so far as sports figures go. The only real points of consensus we have r.e. the sports field is that those who won individual Olympic gold medals (not won in teams) are included and that the most prominent sports figures from the most internationally played sports (such as cricket, soccer and tennis) are included. Sports that are only popularly played regionally (such as baseball and rugby) or predominately domestically/one country (such as gridiron football or Aussie Rules football) are a lot less certain, though it'd be nice if we got some consistency and clarity regarding this. I'm largely staying neutral on Russell, though from my perspective his notability and significance seems to be primarily limited to the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A few points: basketball is absolutely played internationally. The NBA is followed internationally and its stars are known the world over. Virtually every country has its own basketball league, many of which are extremely popular stateside (e.g. China and Eastern Europe). It may not be "the most" internationally played but that is an arbitrary measure. Russell is well known internationally, there are obituaries in major newspapers all over the world, in many languages, and on Wikipedia there are at present articles on Russell in 53 languages. He is a titan of sports in the 20th century, omitting him from this article is basically the same as omitting Babe Ruth from the 1948 article, or Gordie Howe from 2016. He won more championships than anyone in the history of North American team sports, both as a player and as a coach, and is one of only five people inducted into the Hall of Fame (an institution with inductees from all over the world) as a player and coach. I understand that not everyone can be included but I don't think the admins here understand the degree of prominence Russell's shadow casts over international sports. With all due respect to Yelizaveta Dementyeva, who I'm sure was a nice person, people are not coming to this page to see her listed. She won a gold medal in one olympic games in a sport no one has ever heard of, and her wiki is 3 lines long. People come here to see Bill Russell. To not include him is to make articles from recent years less complete and informative than articles of past years, where athletes of far lower stature than Russell are included. Dragonbacon (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

His only significant international notability is an Olympic team medal, which by consensus is insufficient. Outside the US & his sport, very few people have heard of him. It's highly unlikely that the equivalent of him from any other country would gain support for inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Bernd Bransch was an Olympic gold medalist in a team event and he is in the section for deaths in June, so on those grounds Bill Russell absolutely should be included in deaths in July. Unknown artist (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s not really much of an argument for inclusion, when another figure with insufficient notability falls through the cracks. If that’s his only claim to notability, being a non-individual Olympic gold medalist, Bransch should be excluded. TheScrubby (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to lack of international notability. Russell was a purely domestic sports figure with a cultural legacy that is textbook Americentric. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

When a sport's premier league is in a particular nation, it doesn't seem fair to discount the achievements of a person in that league. Say, a Spanish footballer with an entire career in La Liga. Would a basketballer with a very strong career between the Venezuelan basketball league and Argentinian basketball league be given a place here, because they played notably in two countries? It seems short-sighted to discount playing in one league because it is domestic.

Specifically in the case of Bill Russell, I quote from his page: "Russell is widely considered to be one of the greatest basketball players of all time.", "he captained the gold-medal winning U.S. national basketball team at the 1956 Summer Olympics.", " In 2011, Barack Obama awarded Russell the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his accomplishments on the court and in the civil rights movement." In addition, he is tied with Michael Jordan for most NBA MVP awards. Tied. With the G.O.A.T.. He has more MVP awards than LeBron James, Magic Johnson and "his prominent rival" Wilt Chamberlain. If he were a modern era player, he would have a greater international history through the Olympics, but in his playing career, the basketball was for amateurs only, not optional based on players as it was today. Russell CHOSE not to play in the NBA immediately, postponing his debut to play for the United States. Before he had played an NBA game, Russell captained the team to a gold medal. As a pre-rookie. By choosing to play the Olympics and winning a gold medal, in addition to the other achievements of Bill Russell, he deserves a place on the Deaths List. Sincerely, The Voivodeship King (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Russell is very notable in the US, but has little international notability. Some sports are much more internationally notable than others. Some sportspeople are very well known in one country, but little-known in the rest of the world. Try mentioning Russell to people who aren't American or basketball fans - they've very unlikely to have a clue who you're talking about. The only reason I've heard of him is because his death was added to this article. If I didn't read Wikipedia, I'd still not have heard of him.

A solely domestic Spanish footballer wouldn't be included on main year articles. A basketball player would be unlikely to have a very high-achieving career in multiple countries, but if he did he could be eligible for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll concede defeat on Russell, but one point you often make is that knowing who somebody is is not a criteria for inclusion. Take the debate earlier this year about Dwayne Johnson that spun off from the death of Scott Hall. You argued that it did not matter that Johnson was very well known, because he wasn't notable. Regards, The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

A person being well-known (even internationally) isn't enough for them to be on main year articles. If it were, many reality show participants, socialites & other 'famous-for-being-famous' people would be included. I didn't say Johnson isn't notable - I said he has little international notability. That's why I don't think he should be included, despite being known of by hundreds of millions of people across many countries. Some other frequent editors of main year articles have said similar things in regard to well-known people whose notability is solely or mainly in one country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Voivodeship King (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Nichelle Nichols (Result: exclusion)

There seems to be a lack of consensus on whether or not to include Nichelle Nichols. I believe for many of the reasons stated for other American actors and athletes who have died in 2022, we should Exclude her. PaulRKil (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. She's a domestic figure who, like many actors, also has fans in other countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think she should be included. She was tremendously important in the history of television for being the first African-American woman in a significant role. Certainly better known abroad than James Caan, Richard Taruskin, and several others who appear on the list. Her death has been reported in lots of different countries. [2] [3] [4] [5] At a quick glance, popular culture (film&music) on the list is currently represented by 21 white men, 3 white women and Ms. Lata Mangeshkar as the single woman of color. On contrast, 52 athletes are included, even if they're not internationally known. We should include Nichelle Nichols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1110:118:A377:15E1:DBE0:6326:5D9C (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

She was important in the history of US TV only. James Caan is far more well-known outside the US. Millions of people outside the US know of Caan & his work, but few people outside the US, other than Star Trek fans, have heard of her. The deaths of both of them were reported in many countries due to them having fans in many countries, with the coverage of her being Star Trek-centred. We don't make exceptions for people based on their demographic, and Americans are over-represented. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For once, I'd agree with including her. The reason she's not known by name is that she was the only regular female character in Star Trek (so most people would recognise her if you said "Uhura", even though a lot of them can't spell it). Thus she's important as a black woman on TV. I don't know about other countries, but she was practically the only black woman regularly seen on British TV in the 1960s, too. Deb (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, she wasn't as popular as her Star Trek co-stars, not to mention she barely even had any other major roles outside Star Trek. 4me689 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Does Olivia Newton-John deserve a photo? (Result: photo included)

I think she does. She had a notable career in both music AND film. 2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone's already put a photo in there. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I’m thinking Newton-John shouldn’t have an image here as we already have Sidney Poitier in January, William Hurt in March and Jean-Louis Trintignant in June. I understand that Peter Brook and James Caan’s images aren’t in the July section and I don’t think Newton-John fits in the August category for images. I was going to say the same thing about Fidel Ramos as we have Benigno Aquino III in 2021, his mother Corazon in 2009, but apparently dos Santos died the same day as Shinzō Abe and it’s kinda silly to have three politicians since Robert Curl is the only one of the three who isn’t a politician that deserved to have an image. Kyu (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Well we need to have a notable entertainer of some kind for August. And Oliva Newton John is highly notable; her acting career aside, her singing career had top ten hits in the US, UK, Australia, I mean that proves notability. 2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

She's by far the most notable person to die this month, so she should have a photo. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I highly agree with Jim Michael, she was a famous cultural figure that expired millions of people over Generations, she deserves a photo 100%. 4me689 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Finally we can include the photo of a woman...and a very important one. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes! Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Anne Heche (Result: exclusion)

I don’t think Heche should be here although she was an Emmy winner. Should she be excluded? Kyu (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability. Most of the coverage surrounding her death are due to the (tragic) circumstances of it rather than the notability of her career itself. TheScrubby (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to a lack of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to a lack of international notability, I didn't even heard of her until she died. 4me689 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@4me689:, that qualifies you, not the actress. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Tend to agree with exclusion. She was better known for her relationship with Ellen than for her screen roles. Deb (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Stabbing of Salman Rushdie (Result: borderline inclusion)

Can we add the stabbing of Salman Rushdie here? He is an internationally renowned figure who has gotten controversy from several countries governments. 2600:100C:A203:16B3:3117:7804:B27A:9C3E (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Gaois (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

An international figure indeed, and a notable event in 2022 that clearly deserves a mention here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

International news, but with little international repercussion. I have my doubts that it should be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie#Political response section. Iran. Nuclear talks. "US Department of Justice's August 5, 2022 allegation that Iran had planned to assassinate US national security advisor John Bolton in 2020... Hezbollah supporters hailed the attacker on social media, calling him a hero, and using the hashtag "holy stabbing" in their posts". Sounds like international repercussions to me. --Gaois (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

But they aren't. The reaction of Hezbollah supporters (and Iranian authorities) is natural and that Bolton could be the target of an assassination attempt (nothing is confirmed) is not a reaction at all to the Rushdie stabbing. There've been no sanctions, no emergency meetings, no expulsions of diplomats...I'm missing things. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Persisting front page news worldwide. Include. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Alsoriano - plus Rushdie was wounded, not assassinated. Exclude. TheScrubby (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Include It received worldwide news coverage and the way I look at it, if it can make it to the Wiki's In the News section, there shouldn't be a problem with it being in this year's article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose/Doubtful It dropped off the news headlines very quickly. It would be different if it is definitely discovered that there was a political motive - and exactly what that motive was. Deb (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wolfgang Petersen (Result: borderline inclusion)

Thoughts on Wolfgang Petersen being included in the death section? I'm creating a talk page discussion about this for reference. I'm leaning towards inclusion for the fact he made blockbuster films, was a well known director and was a two-time Oscar nominee. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because although he was a successful filmmaker in his native Germany as well as the US, he has no awards. Nominations aren't important enough. He isn't considered to have been one of the best filmmakers. His notability is significantly below that of Paul Verhoeven, who likewise has been a successful filmmaker in his own country as well as the US but whom has significant awards from multiple countries. We don't & shouldn't include most of the European actors who have been in notable films on both sides of the Atlantic; I don't think we should treat filmmakers differently in that regard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Include, albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume, it's safe to assume that this dude is famous in other countries outside of Germany and the United States and is successful in many other countries around the world. it looks like a dude who would be included in these types of articles. 4me689 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I’d be inclined to include him as a borderline inclusion, as per 4me689. Which naturally means I’d also be opposed to his image being included. TheScrubby (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Did he have anything other than his films being popular in many countries? Thousands of people have popularity in multiple countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Include. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Include. I think he's pretty well known worldwide. I certainly knew of him. Maybe not quite a household name, but still very significant. Deb (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fashion designers (Result: case-by case basis; Miyake inclusion and Mori borderline inclusion)

Where should the inclusion bar be for fashion designers? Are Issey Miyake & Hanae Mori internationally notable enough? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

both look they have enough International nobility for me to approve for inclusion, I mean they look like they have a pretty good resume. 4me689 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally fashion designers are internationally notable enough and should be included (in terms of Miyake and Mori). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Issey Miyake, yes, very widely known internationally; Hanae Mori, no. Deb (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Deb; review the designer on a case by case basis. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Peter Straub (Result: exclusion)

Is he internationally notable enough? How important are his awards? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Include, albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume, he was well known writer 4me689 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would lean towards exclusion, though I’m closer to neutral than anything. But I don’t think he had the international notability for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Turns out that multiple participants of this discussion thread was a banned sockpuppet.

Include. Fairly renowned author and it's fitting to include an author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.226 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Include! Ingrid997 (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC) To those simply saying to include, none have made a sufficient argument in response to Jim’s question asking how he’s internationally notable enough. Straub was hardly a household name and his awards were domestic. TheScrubby (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC) I have no stake in it; so my observations will be just that observations. The Genre of Horror Story Writing is very Niche. So much so; that many of the awards that Straub won for example; are mostly American/British based; because well the status of Horror Story Writing is so new. Would Straub be notable for inclusion then ? Well Maybe ? 65.78.186.95 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Include. He won seventeen minor awards in five different countries. Ingrid997 (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Why would minor awards be relevant? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

My opinion similar to TheScrubby; I'm not familiar with his work, and most non-bookworms have likely not read it. I think his inclusion all depends on the substance and quantity of awards; 17 smaller ones across five countries is certainly impressive, and the World Fantasy Award does seem influential (it's also a GA here), but I don't think it's a household name nor the subject of substantive media coverage. Unlike the Pulitzer Prize or the Emmys, I don't get CNN alerts about the World Fantasy Awards. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)